Certification panel wants CCSF faculty suit tossed

Claudeen Narnac walks down the steps in front of a City College of San Francisco sign in San Francisco, Calif. on July 3, 2013

Claudeen Narnac walks down the steps in front of a City College of San Francisco sign in San Francisco, Calif. on July 3, 2013

Photo: Ian C. Bates, The Chronicle

Photo: Ian C. Bates, The Chronicle

Image
1of/1

Caption

Close

Image 1 of 1

Claudeen Narnac walks down the steps in front of a City College of San Francisco sign in San Francisco, Calif. on July 3, 2013

Claudeen Narnac walks down the steps in front of a City College of San Francisco sign in San Francisco, Calif. on July 3, 2013

Photo: Ian C. Bates, The Chronicle

Certification panel wants CCSF faculty suit tossed

1 / 1

Back to Gallery

The commission set to yank City College of San Francisco's accreditation will ask a judge on Monday to dismiss a faculty lawsuit seeking to prevent it from taking the final step next summer that would close the 80,000-student school.

The process began nearly two years ago when the commission found financial and managerial problems at City College so severe that it ordered the college to fix them or lose its right to do business. Now, as the revocation date of July 31 looms, the American Federation of Teachers, the city of San Francisco, and a coalition of students and community members have all filed suits to try to stop the commission from carrying out its most severe punishment.

All claim the commission made so many missteps in its evaluation of City College that its decision must be invalidated. And they argue that the harm to students by closing the school would far outweigh that of allowing it to stay open. Meanwhile, college officials oppose the lawsuits and claim they can avoid losing accreditation by repairing the numerous deficiencies, which range from tangled governance to a disproportionate share of funds for salaries and benefits. No problem involves poor academic quality.

Problems understated

The state has replaced City College's elected trustees with a single decision-maker, Special Trustee Robert Agrella, who recently wrote to the commission's president, Barbara Beno, in support of the process.

He said the school evaluations "have been found to be accurate and, unfortunately in some areas, even understated in the depth of problems the college faces."

Agrella also said the evaluation process had "revealed problems that are now being addressed to assure the long-term viability of the college."

He is asking the commission to reconsider its decision during an appeals process that is confidential under the commission's rules.

Last Thursday, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Curtis Karnow heard arguments from the faculty and the city about why the accreditation process should be halted.

Their attorneys accused the commission of improperly augmenting the number of accreditation violations without giving the college a chance to respond. They also cited findings by the U.S. Department of Education, which oversees accreditation, that the commission assigned too few teachers to its evaluation teams and that Beno's husband, Peter Crabtree, should not have served on the team that evaluated City College.

"Most of what we complain about isn't the substance, but procedural errors - but they're pretty serious procedural errors," the faculty's attorney, Robert Bezemek, told the judge.

On Monday, the commission is expected to claim that argument has no merit.

"Plaintiffs concoct a complicated web of intrigue, conspiracy, character assassination and guilt by association," the commission's legal papers assert.

Accused of SLAPP suit

The commission accuses the faculty of filing a "strategic lawsuit against public participation," or SLAPP suit, meant to stifle freedom of expression. Under state law, SLAPPs are dismissed and the plaintiffs pay all legal fees.

Meanwhile, on Thursday, Deputy City Attorney Sara Eisenberg asked Karnow to require the commission to re-do the entire college evaluation process.

"Wipe the slate clean and have the commission start over and do the process fairly," Eisenberg said.

Karnow gave no hint about which side he favored and has not indicated when he will decide. But either way, at least one case is expected to go to trial unless the college prevails in its appeals process.

Who will suffer most

Much of the debate on Thursday centered on who would suffer most under each scenario. The faculty and city argued that students would suffer most if the college closed.

"They are not just shutting down a college. They are shutting down the education of 80,000 students," Bezemek told the court.

The commission argued that taxpayers would suffer most by having to pay for a substandard school. Its attorneys contend the commission is a "consumer protection agency" that ensures schools are well run fiscally as well as academically.

"There is plenty of evidence that City College is not in compliance with standards," Sclar said. "You could issue an injunction, but that would mask the problem and people would be fooled" into thinking City College was in compliance.

The debate continues at 10:30 a.m. Monday in San Francisco Superior Court, 400 MacAllister St.